sunshine hours

March 22, 2014

What Would 2C of Warming By 2036 Look Like?

Filed under: AGW is a Cult,HADCRUT4,Humor,Mockery — sunshinehours1 @ 10:52 AM
Tags: , ,

Michael Mann: “our planet would cross the dangerous warming threshold of two degrees C in 2036, only 22 years from now. ” (h/t Jeff Id)

Using HADCRUT4 and WoodForTrees I graphed the data from 1850 t0 2014, and then added in 2C of warming by 2036.

What a joke.

Update: The biggest rise over 22 years was March 1976 to February 1998 = 1.193C. The 4th biggest was March 1856 to February 1878 = 0.913C.



  1. 2c above 2014 or 2c above the 1900-1999 mean?

    Comment by Glacier — April 2, 2014 @ 2:21 PM | Reply

  2. Looking at Michael Mann’s article and in particular the accompanying figure at the beginning of his article, he was clearly referring to 2C above pre-industrial levels not 2C above current levels.

    The current figure is about 0.8C above pre-industrial temperatures (using the average HADCRUT4 values for 1850-1900) so Michael Mann’s point should be plotted at about 1.7 rather than 2.5 on your figure above.

    Interestingly Mann’s increase from current levels is 1.2C over 22 years which is approximately the same figure you quote above for the increase from March 1976 to February 1998.

    Comment by Mike R — May 16, 2014 @ 7:25 PM | Reply

  3. The dates chosen in the preceding comment were prime examples of the picking of low hanging fruit. Anyone can play the same game. I likewise encourage those whose memories are not sufficiently long enough to recall that Feb 1875 was 0.93C cooler and Feb 1947 was 0.48C cooler than Feb 2014.

    In particular the measurements prior to 1900 are “noisy” compared to the data after 1900 (see ). This is most likely due to the limited number of stations compared to the number used later in the record.
    As a consequence, the period 1850 to 1900 is the peak of the cherry picking season that allows the extraction of any required result by a suitable choice of dates. Other dates outside this period, as evidenced by the use of Feb 1944, can also be used.

    I can only guess as to why this non-sequitur , along with 1945 etc. was introduced into the discussion. Was is simply to divert from the misleading chart at the top of the blog and the corrections needed?

    Is there any other reason?

    Comment by Mike R — May 17, 2014 @ 9:10 PM | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 163 other followers

%d bloggers like this: